Grimes v. Grimes
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 3 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. So much of the answer as was made á cross-petition against the plaintiff and her children having been dismissed, the judgment reforming the deed was unauthorized. 2. The children of appellant were necessary parties to the action so far as it sought to reform the deed, and should have been brought before the court. 3. The appellee’s remedy, if any, was by hn original action and not by cross-petition.
Read the full summary
Case 3 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. So much of the answer as was made á cross-petition against the plaintiff and her children having been dismissed, the judgment reforming the deed was unauthorized. 2. The children of appellant were necessary parties to the action so far as it sought to reform the deed, and should have been brought before the court. 3. The appellee’s remedy, if any, was by hn original action and not by cross-petition. (Civil Code, section 95; Crabtree v. Bank’s Adm’r, 1 Met.) 4. The evidence does not support the judgment reforming the deed. To…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant, as the wife of the appellee, filed her petition in the Daviess Circuit Court against the appellee for the purpose of obtaining a devorce from him. She alleged in the petition that she was the owner of five acres of land in said county, and she asked the chancellor to protect her in the enjoyment of it, etc., etc. The appellee, in one paragraph of his answer, alleged that he bought, in 1872, said tract of land from Mr. Hathaway; that he paid him for it; that he paid for the building of the residence thereon; that, by an agreement…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bradley v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
- Cherry v. CherryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Collins v. OutramCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930